Recently, Philip D. Smith & Associates has achieved some great results on surveillance for our clients. Here are three examples.
CASE 1
The first one we’ll highlight is a case we worked on a gentleman who, along with his family, own and operate a small business. It was reported at the time of the assignment that the plaintiff was actively involved in the day to day operation of the business prior to his accident. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries that prevented him from performing the day to day operations of the business. In fact, the plaintiff reported that he really wasn’t even capable of going to the business for any substantial period of time. As a result of the accident the plaintiff claimed not only his physical injuries and restrictions, but claimed also that his business was suffering as well.
We were authorized by our client to work three days of surveillance in a row. Prior to conducting surveillance we obtained and confirmed pertinent pre-surveillance information such as the plaintiffs address, business address, and motor vehicles registered to the plaintiff as well as social media records which provided photos of the plaintiff.
On the first day we established surveillance in the morning, around 7:00 am, in the vicinity of the plaintiff’s residence. Soon after establishing surveillance we observed the vehicle registered to the plaintiff departed the residence driven by a gentleman matching the age and general physical description of the plaintiff.
Soon after, the plaintiff arrived at his family business. The plaintiff was observed exiting the vehicle and entering the business. Our surveillance investigators maintained surveillance of the business and the plaintiff’s vehicle to see if the plaintiff would remain at the business and for how long. Soon after, the plaintiff was observed exiting the business and performing activities outside the business which were inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claims of being unable to work for the business.
The plaintiff spent a majority of his time inside the business. As such, one of our investigators entered the business with a covert camera. While inside the business the investigator successfully obtained covert video of the plaintiff engaged in employment activities that were inconsistent with his claims.
As the afternoon turned into evening the plaintiff remained at the business exiting out the back door occasionally and performing activities outside the business consistent with being an employee of the business. Around 10:00 pm the plaintiff remained inside the business even after most of the other employees had departed for the evening. Around 11:30 pm the plaintiff exited the business, used a set of keys to lock door, entered his vehicle and departed.
Although it was reported at the time of the assignment that the plaintiff can no longer work for his business, or spend much time at the business because of his injuries, the plaintiff was observed during this day of surveillance working for his business. In fact the plaintiff spent upwards of 15 hours at the business.
The second day of surveillance brought about much the same activity. In the morning, the plaintiff was observed departing his residence and traveling to his business. Occasionally the plaintiff did exit the business and was observed performing activities consistent with being an employee of the business. Again on this day one of the investigators entered the business with a covert camera and obtained additional covert video of the plaintiff engaged in activity inconsistent with his claims.
On the second day of surveillance the plaintiff remained at the business, leaving only for a short period of time in the late afternoon. At 11:30 pm the plaintiff exited the business, used a key to lock the door, and departed. Again on this day the plaintiff spent upwards of 15 hours at his business.
The third day of surveillance followed much of the same pattern. Again on this day the plaintiff was observed both outside the business and inside the business engaged in activities consistent with being an employee of the business and inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claims.
Over the course of the three day surveillance the plaintiff was observed to be present at and physically working for his business for nearly 40 hours. During the course of the surveillance we were also able to secure the names of plaintiff’s co-works/employees, which our client thought would be useful going forward.
CASE 2
Another case we worked recently again involved a plaintiff who owned and operated her own business at the time of her accident. As a result of the accident and her injuries the plaintiff claimed that she could no longer perform the day to day physical activities of her business. She also claimed that her business was suffering as a result of her injuries. This particular case was a little more involved initially because it was determined through pre-surveillance investigation that the plaintiff was actually going through a divorce, and no longer residing at the address provided at the time of the assignment. A new address for the plaintiff was developed and in fact, prior to conducting any surveillance, it was determined that the plaintiff was leaving her residence at a very early time, before 6:00 am on most days. Developing this information was crucial as it helped us determine a time and location for establishing surveillance.
On the first day of surveillance the plaintiff was observed leaving her residence before 6:00 am and traveling to another location where her business vehicle was waiting. This information again provided critical in the success of the surveillance because on each subsequent day of surveillance we were able to establish surveillance on the location where her business vehicle was parked over night and did not have to follow the plaintiff from her residence.
During the course of surveillance, which totaled four days, the plaintiff was regularly engaged in the day to day operation of her business and was videotaped performing the physically demanding activities required of her landscaping and landscape design business, which were inconsistent with her claims.
CASE 3
Another recent successful case for Philip D. Smith & Assoc. involved surveillance of a woman who was allegedly injured in a work related accident. It was reported at the time of the assignment that the plaintiff was not working as she could no longer perform the duties required of the job she was working at the time of the accident, or another job she had at the time of her injury working as a beautician. Furthermore, it was reported that the plaintiff was unable to drive as a result of her injuries.
On the first day of surveillance, which began around 7:00 am, the plaintiff was soon observed exiting her residence. The plaintiff entered a vehicle parked in the driveway, a vehicle registered in her name, and departed. The plaintiff was the driver and only occupant of the vehicle.
A short time later the plaintiff arrived at an unlabeled commercial building. Upon arriving she entered through a door marked “Employees Only”. The plaintiff remained at this unknown building until approx. 4:30 pm. When the plaintiff exited the building she used a set of keys to check the mailbox before re-entering her vehicle and departing. Again, the plaintiff was observed driving the vehicle.
The second day of surveillance, which originated in the afternoon, found the plaintiff’s vehicle parked at the same commercial building. Soon after, the plaintiff was observed opening the “Employee Only” doors to exit the building. During surveillance the plaintiff was observed exiting and re-entering the “Employee Only” doors to greet and converse with different visitors. The plaintiff remained at the commercial building well into the evening when she exited the building entered her vehicle and departed. Again, the plaintiff was observed driving.
Over the course of the two days the plaintiff was observed spending a significant period of time at the unlabeled commercial building. The plaintiff used the “Employee Only” door each time she accessed the building, was observed moving the injured part of her body without obvious restriction, and was observed driving a motor vehicle, all of which were inconsistent with her claims.
